Wakilii

Lydia Mugambe v Kayita James and Another (Civil Suit No. 339 of 2020)

High Court · [2022] UGHCCD 340 · 2022 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for breach of construction contract with counterclaim
Decision
Judgment entered for the plaintiff with damages and costs; counterclaim dismissed

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions—always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

Held that both defendants breached the construction agreement by failing to complete works within the stipulated time and by negligently performing finishing works that were defective, poorly supervised, and below professional standards. The defendants were jointly and severally liable for breach of contract and negligent performance. The 1st defendant signed the contract in his personal capacity as contractor and was thus personally liable alongside the 2nd defendant company. However, the claim of misrepresentation was not established as the plaintiff failed to prove the alleged representations were false or material to inducing the contract. Judgment for the plaintiff with damages awarded.

Outcome

Judgment entered for the plaintiff with damages and costs; counterclaim dismissed

Facts

The plaintiff entered into a construction agreement dated 3 July 2019 with the defendants for finishing works on a ten apartment block in Bweyogerere, Kiira. The works were to be completed within 6 months for UGX 450,000,000. The plaintiff paid UGX 320,000,000 by 12 November 2019. The defendants failed to complete the works within the agreed time. The plaintiff alleged the defendants performed shoddy work including cracked wall plaster, plaster peeling off walls, cracked ceiling plaster and cornices, defective and uneven door frames, and unlevelled or cracked floor tiles. The plaintiff alleged the defendants hired incompetent supervisors and workers. The defendants contended that the plaintiff breached the contract by failing to provide structural and architectural drawings, failing to provide supervising technical personnel, giving unreasonable instructions, and wrongfully dismissing workers from the site. The 2nd defendant filed a counterclaim for UGX 171,741,600 for unpaid balance and reimbursement of costs. The court visited the locus and observed the defects.

Issues

  1. Whether there was a breach of contract, and if so by whom?
  2. Whether the defendants negligently performed the construction works?
  3. Whether the 1st defendant misrepresented the 2nd defendant's technical capacity and capability to perform the contract?
  4. What remedies are available?

Orders

  • Judgment entered for the plaintiff against the defendants jointly and severally.
  • Special damages awarded to the plaintiff in the sum of UGX 27,000,000.
  • General damages awarded to the plaintiff in the sum of UGX 225,000,000.
  • Interest awarded on special damages at 15% per annum from the date of filing the suit.
  • Interest awarded on general damages at 20% per annum from the date of judgment.
  • Costs of the suit awarded to the plaintiff.
  • Counterclaim dismissed.

Rules and key headnotes

Breach of Contract — Time for Performance — Extension by Conduct versus Written Variation
Where a written construction contract specifies a time for completion and provides that any extension must be by written agreement, the mere fact that parties continue operations beyond the stipulated time without written variation does not constitute a valid extension of the contract period, and failure to complete within the original time constitutes breach.
Construction Contracts — Duty to Supervise and Direct Works — Standard of Performance
A construction contractor owes a contractual duty to supervise and direct works using professional skill, experience, and best attention, and failure to do so resulting in defective works constitutes breach of contract even where some work has been performed.
Concurrent Liability in Contract and Tort — Construction Works
Where by contract a party has agreed to perform construction works with reasonable care and skill, a corresponding duty of care arises in tort unless excluded by the contract, and a plaintiff may sue for both breach of contract and negligence provided the requisite elements for each cause of action are established.
Negligence — Professional Negligence — Standard of Care in Construction
A construction contractor who undertakes to exercise best skill and attention in performing works owes a duty of care in negligence to perform to the standard of an ordinary skilled contractor exercising and professing to have that specialty, and failure to meet this standard resulting in defective works constitutes actionable negligence.
Company Law — Lifting the Corporate Veil — Personal Liability of Directors
Where a company director signs a construction contract in his personal capacity describing himself as contractor rather than on behalf of the company, the director may be held personally and jointly liable with the company for breach of contract notwithstanding the separate legal personality of the company.
Special Damages — Proof Required — Expert Reports as Recoverable Costs
Where a plaintiff incurs costs of expert technical audit reports to assess the extent of defective works performed by a defendant contractor, such costs are recoverable as special damages if specifically pleaded, proved by receipts, and were reasonably incurred as a direct consequence of the defendant's breach.
General Damages — Assessment in Construction Disputes — Cost of Rectification
In assessing general damages for breach of a construction contract where works are defective and below professional standards, the court may award damages based on the cost of rectifying defective works or putting the plaintiff in the position she would have been had the contract been properly performed, guided by expert evidence and common sense.

Legislation cited (9)

  • Contracts Act No. 07 of 2010 s.33(1)
  • Contracts Act No. 07 of 2010 s.61(1)
  • Companies Act 2012 s.20
  • Building Control Act 2013 s.34
  • Building Control Regulations 2020 Reg.5
  • Building Control Regulations 2020 Reg.27
  • Building Control Regulations 2020 Reg.29
  • Building Control Regulations 2020 Reg.36
  • Building Control Regulations 2020 Reg.42

Cases cited (11)

  • Golden Construction Co. Ltd v Stateco (Nig) Ltd (2014) 8 NWLR (pt 1408)
  • Henderson v Merrett Syndicates Ltd [1995] 2 AC 145
  • Tesco Stores Ltd v Costain Construction Ltd & Others [2003] EWHC 1487 (TCC)
  • Go Dante Yap v Bank Austria Creditanstalt AG [2011] 4 SLR 559
  • Boschcon Civil & Electrical Construction Company (U) Ltd v Salini Costruttori Spa (Civil Suit No. 151 of 2008)
  • Pasley v Freeman 3 TR 51, 100 ER 450 (KB)
  • Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd [1963] 2 All ER 575
  • Esso Petroleum Co Ltd v Mardon [1976] QB 801
  • Esther Sempebwa v The Non-Performing Assets Recovery Trust (Civil Suit No. 0954 of 2004)
  • The Kriti Palm [2007] All ER (Comm) 667
  • Great Eastern Hotel Co Ltd v John Laing Construction Ltd & Anor [2005] EWHC 181

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

Lydia Mugambe v Kayita James and Another (Civil Suit No. 339 of 2020) [2022] UGHCCD 340 (8 August 2022)
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.